»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Will Bush be re-elected?
| The Alley |
|
Will Bush be re-elected? |
|
|
2writeis2be Junior Member
since 2004-01-11
Posts 45Live in London, but from TX |
Well since this is the forum for discussing things and moaning...all that fun stuff...thought I'd see people's opinions on Bush. They say never discuss politics or religion but why not? It's fun to see what people think--regarless if it's good or bad. I didn't think Bush would be re-elected until I heard about how he's recently tried to befriend the latino majority by allowing them to retain visas to work in the US, instead of them using other options to come over illegally. I think this was a staged effort to gain more votes come election time, and I think it might just work (though I hope it doesn't). Because now all the stuff about the war in Iraq is being brought up--and anti-Bush activists intend to slaughter him with all the truth about this war being totally unjust --so in turn, he is trying to save his butt by getting the mexicans on his side. What do u think and do u think he'll be re-elected? Are u for or against him? And do u think this time he'll be elected fairly or will he need his brother to get him out of the crap again? ~~Lisa |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Lisa Somerset - All Rights Reserved | |||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Because now all the stuff about the war in Iraq is being brought up--and anti-Bush activists intend to slaughter him with all the truth about this war being totally unjust Just what is the truth??? What is your truth might not be my truth, ot the truth of anyone else. Your truth and my truth certainly isn't the truth of the fighting men and women from many nations that are over there now, and that were there before. So, please explain to me this concept of truth. Because I am not quite sure that you or I or anyone else on this board are qualified to determine what the truth is without ALL of the facts, and not just the rantings of some ultra-liberal bleeding hearts, or of the ultra-conservative side of the fence. And neither you, nor I, nor anyone else you might quote was there for the decision making process, and I know for positive that none of the "Truth" bearers would ever lower themselves to actually go into harms way when they can sit on the outside and snipe at the decision-makers from their perches that are protected by the very people that they are telling the "truth" about. And what was injust about it? Was it injust to get Saddam Hussein out of power? Was it unjust to attempt to bring a better life to the people of Iraq? Was it un-just to attempt to stop the mass killings of a suppressive regime, who built and maintained 7 palaces while complaining that his people were starving? Obviously the money was there... And now the Danish military has found, and the British military has confirmed, weapons with blister agent (a chemical munition that causes very severe and painful blisters). Is it unjust to rid the country of those, especially since the deposed dictator has used them against his own people? Is it unjust to stop the ritual raping, torture and killing of anyone who opposed the regime? I apologize, maybe I am not clear on what is just. I think this was a staged effort to gain more votes come election time Yes, it probably was partially to gain votes in November... however, it is also going to increase the wages that these illegal immigrants can make, because now they will be registered, and not have to work in the sweat shops where they have been until now. It is also going to increase the amount of tax revinue that the US makes. And do u think this time he'll be elected fairly or will he need his brother to get him out of the crap again? Judges?? BUZZ... thank you for playing. It was actually the Supreme Court that upheld the election. and since you brought it up, EVERY major US new source reported during the last election taht Florida Governor Jeb Bush STAYED OUT of the entire process. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, and his brother being involved... Gov. Bush did nothing to help, or impede either candidate. And since you asked, if Vice President Gore would have won just one more major state, then Florida wouldn't have counted. and if Governor Bush (the candidate) would have won Pennsylvania, then Florida wouldn't have mattered at all... Back to the war for just a second. You are talking about BUSH and how the war is unjust and everything of that nature... well, there is one thing you are forgetting... it ISN'T president Bush's war exclusively. In case you have missed the news broadcasts, 53 loyal British subjects have lost their lives to date in the Middle East. As have 19 Italians, 10 Spanish, 5 Bulgarians,2 Ukaranians, 2 Thai, 1 Danish, and 1 Polish soldier. So, you are putting the price of death of ALL of those different nationalities on the head on one man. That is giving him more power than is his due. I don't recall anything in the news about American servicemen coming over to your country and holding PM Blaire's family hostage until he committed troops. As the leader of his nation he did that of his own free will.. as did the others listed, and the Australians, and a host of other countries. So, while you are listing all of the evils that my president has committed, take a moment to include- publicly- those of your Prime Minister. I think it might just work (though I hope it doesn't). And, respectfully, I ask you why it would be of your concern whether President Bush is re-elected again, or not? That is actually no more a matter for British subjects to concern themsleves with than the re-election of the Labour party, and by default, PM Blaire is the concern of any American citizen. And with the truth coming out that "Bonny Prince Charlie" killing his wife, there would be more pressing matters for you to concern yourself with. Then again, these are just my thoughts. Cause in my dreams it's always there The evil face that twists my mind And brings me to despair. [This message has been edited by Ringo (01-13-2004 09:35 AM).] |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
I have to agree with Ringo on at least one point,,,,,,the "truth" is something seen differently by all...... Funny part is,,,,,,no matter who takes over the big chair,,,,faults,,,both real and imagined,,,will be picked apart... Seems no matter what the country,,which ruler,,,,,what have you,,,,if not attacked by their own,,,,they will always be judged and found short. We do need to look at the possitives that all leaders have given,,,,,insane dictators not included,,,,look at the facts,,,not media hype,,,, Will he be re-elected? Most likely,,,,we tend to do so,,,,,,its easier that way....letter heads need not be changed,,,,etc,,,, take care Michelle I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't bother, Ringo. We gone over this before with our friends from across the sea. Somehow it seems so much easier to badmouth another country's leaders than one's own....they seem to be very eager to do so. Interesting how easy it is to sit thousands of miles away and piece one's own version of the truth together by gathering newspaper headlines. Florida elections? Bush's brother? Illegal aliens? Points have a little more validity when one has at least some kind of idea what one is speaking of, instead of just grabbing magazines and newspapers and treating them as gospel, repeating them with great indignation. There's nothing wrong with the title of the thread...it's a valid question. To go off of it on a smear campaign against another country's president is a sad way to attempt to have an intelligent conversation. |
||
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Addressing the titled question - I believe he will~  *Huglets*  ~*Marge*~ ~*When the heart grieves over what it has lost, |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 With plenty of time still before the election, who can say! But what I can tell you is that I am fiercely opposing Bush and I am against him.  I have my own creed, my own philosophy of an ideal ruler, and one who rules with the thirst for war, manipulations and hatred never gets my re-election bid. It is rather clear now that the whole Iraq war was commenced out of hatred and revenge. But my opposition of Bush also goes far beyond the war. It also goes to the generality of his rule, mocking the constitution, the rights of our people, his lobbyist government, and his usurping of our land behind closed doors. I'll let you vote as you wish, but I intend to use every fiber of my being without the use of blasphemy and violence to hope and help to knock him out of office in November. Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Noah- As we have discussed several times, we are on different sides of this issue. And while I will respectfully give you the right to have your viewpoint, I do have a few questions to ask of you in this matter. It is rather clear now that the whole Iraq war was commenced out of hatred and revenge Could you explain this. I don't see this as the entire truth (and I refer to my easrlier post about the "truth"). While I am willing to accept that planning for the Iraqi campaign was started before the September 11 attacks, and while it is possible that Pres Geo I was in the Junior Bush's thoughts, President Clinton was ALSO in favor of the regime being toppled, and knew, and stated for the record during his time in the "Big Chair" (as Michelle put it), that Saddam needed to be ejected in order for peace to ever occur in the region. The only real difference between the two administrations, in my view, is that that current one acted upon their beliefs. If former President Clinton had gone to war, would you have had the same beliefs about this being done out of hatred and revenge, or would your viewpoint have shifted to supporting the decisions of a liberal Democrat president? But my opposition of Bush also goes far beyond the war. It also goes to the generality of his rule, mocking the constitution, the rights of our people, his lobbyist government, Again, I ask what your opposition is. before 9/11, everyone seemed to be against President Bush (again, my opinion) because he had no clear cut domestic policy, and he was spending too much of his time with foreign policy. I will admit that I was slightly disappointed with him in the beginning of his term, however, once the attacks came, he seemed to step up to the plate and handle the situation as best as he could. In this matter,he is to be compared to the sainted FDR, who was generally reviled as a weak president during the first year of his first term. Then (only 2 months longer than GWB) at the end of his first year, the US was the victim of a terrorist attack on the other side of the country. 50 years later, FDR is considered by most to be one of our greatest presidents because of his strength of heart and his willingness to stand up for his convictions. What people tend to forget is that during his first 2 years in office, he took our country to war (which was NOT popluar, contrary to popular opinion) allowed American citizens to be detained against their will for extreme amounts of time (the Japanese Interrment Camps), restricted the movement of American Citizens, had people arrested for not observing blackout conditions, unilaterally imposing curfews... and many other "sins" that stomped on the rights of American citizens. Shortly after his inaguration, FDR sent a bill to Congress attempting to re-structure the Supreme Court, and did so because the Supreme Court declared many of his New Deal offerings to be unconstitutional. While I am NOT suggesting that President Bush, Jr and FDR are both to be idolized. In fact, I feel that you are doing your civic duty to question your leaders. I am only asking that you treat all leaders fairly. President Bush is being vilified for "ignoring the Constitution, and infringing on the people's rights, and FDR is now being hailed as one of the greatest presidents ever... and he did the same thing in the same situation. President Clinton, whom I am guessing you supported with your entire being, had more contraversies and scandals during his first 3 years than either the President Bush prior, or after, yet he is revered by the Democratic left. One last question that I hope you take some time to think about seriously, and then answer as truthfully as you can (there's that word again): What if Vice President Gore had, in fact, been in the seat of power when 9/11 hit? Would he have been able to protect the citizens of his country without stepping on a few rights? Would ANY of this have been significantly different? Cause in my dreams it's always there |
||
|
2writeis2be Junior Member
since 2004-01-11
Posts 45Live in London, but from TX |
"With plenty of time still before the election, who can say! But what I can tell you is that I am fiercely opposing Bush and I am against him." Mistletoe Angel-- well as an american myself, even though 1 or 2 people in here automatically assumed I'm british just because I reside in England, I am with you on this one. Sticking to my original post and saying do away with Bush. He has caused enough trouble during his term and his time should be up. It's just a real shame more people haven't opened their eyes to the dishevelled world he has created since he's resided in office. |
||
|
RSWells Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533 |
No He's dishonest "you can fool some of the people all of the time ................ |
||
|
2writeis2be Junior Member
since 2004-01-11
Posts 45Live in London, but from TX |
"Don't bother, Ringo. We gone over this before with our friends from across the sea. Somehow it seems so much easier to badmouth another country's leaders than one's own....they seem to be very eager to do so. Interesting how easy it is to sit thousands of miles away and piece one's own version of the truth together by gathering newspaper headlines. Florida elections? Bush's brother? Illegal aliens?" First off, I'm american like I just mentioned in the previous post...born and bred in Austin,Texas... lived there all my life apart fm the last 2 years. I am entitled to say what I think of the president and his actions concerning the US (of which I am a citizen). And I have first hand knowledge of illegal immigrants who flood into texas fm mexico on a daily basis. And to give these people now legal status after commiting a criminal act in the first place makes a mockery of all the people who come to the US through the official channels and have to wait their turn. Although alot of immigrants coming into the US are valuable, there are an awful lot that are not. Bush now has given these people the right to stay in the US legally which will no doubt see him through the next election w/their votes. Handy aye? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Lisa... as you are an American citizen, I will formally and in public apologize for making the presumtion that you were not. I still hold my views, and am able to respect your right to have yours. I ahve also had to deal with the illegal immigrant situation. When I was stationed in Yuma, we did some work with the border patrol, and as an EMT, we did a few runs on the illegals that attempted to jump the border. One thing I find amusing is that people who jump on a floating pick-up truck and make it to the shores are immediately considered for asylum because they are leaving their country in which they are being repressed and they are attempting a better way of life... and most people are fine with that... however, if someone decides to cut a hole in the fence and run over 20 miles of desert sand, then they are to be immediately sent home because they didn't go through channels... As an American serviceman living in Arizona, I spent much of my off-time as far away from the base as possible... and that included more of Mexico than not. I got to meet the indigenous people, and the "real" Mexicans that didn't rely on American dollars for their living... I also got to meet some of the most corrupt people in the world. Police officers who shot the "culprit" for doing nothing more than questioning a false arrest... Mexican citizens being arrested for walking in the wrong part of town. Town officials who make muchos dineros in pay-offs and illegal actions, and yet they allow their citizens to live in absolute squalor. Eight year olds selling themselves on the streets to provide for their families. And these didn't just take place in the border towns. In Cuba, you have the national government supressing the populace... in Mexico, it's the local government, and the national government turns a blind eye,and a deaf ear... I don't really see the difference between the two, yet one stays with our blessing, and the other gets sent home in shackles... Just my thoughts Cause in my dreams it's always there |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lisa, I will join Ringo in apologizing for the assumption you were English. If you had seen some of the earlier threads we have had here originating over there perhaps you would understand  However, my response stays the same. As Ringo pointed out, Jeb Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the Florida elections. He ws smart enough to run the other way, know that would be people saying he used some influence....which, in retrospect, was wasted effort on his part since you have said it anyway. In recounts held BY THE DEMOCRATS the results came out the same. Of course that did not reach the front page so you wouldn't know about that. If Gore had simply carried his own state, he would have won the election. Unfortunately for him, his own state knows him better than most. So for you to make the statement about his brother helping him out of the crap simply exposes yourself to the fact that your comments are nothing but personal rants with no basis in fact....and everyone is entitled to personal rants. Look at my friend Noah...LOL! What makes me smile about his bitterness is that he hates dishonesty and disrespect in the presidency and yet he thought Clinton was a fine president - Clinton, the documented biggest liar and disrespector of the office in the history of the country! There has to be humor in that somewhere. Will Bush be re-elected? I hope so - not necessarily because he is such an outstanding man but more so because he is far and above any of the idiots that are trying to run against him. As is in many elections, it's not a vote for the best man but for the least worst. There have been no more 9/11's. The Taliban is not harboring terrorists in Afghanistan. Hussein is not butchering people in Iraq. Many, many countries are hunting down terrorists cells. Terrorists leaders do not havethe freedom to move around. COuntries are initiating peace talks. There seems to be a united stand in the world among many countries to fight terrorism at every level. The economy has gotten back on its feet admirably since 9/11 to the point that in a poll taken last week over 90% of the people polled stated that they were at very least satisfied with their lives and the economy. Vote for Bush? I can't find a reason not to.... |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Bush is human. His integrity to his Wife and Country hold firm. His allegience to the Flag...firmer still. Is he put up by his contingency to gain where he can, publicity wise? Of course. What president hasn't reaped the value of 15 good seconds. Funny...it truly doesn't seem to matter WHO is president. The first thing they do that isn't "your" agenda [speaking globally here] and wham! They're on your "I'm not voting for them!" list. Anyone here want to try being the President of this Nation - or the Prime Minister, or other highly elected offical who runs a country? ... for a week, or a day? It takes guts. Sometimes it takes nothing more than charisma [as we saw in our previous president] to run across our backsides with their "ha ha, can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man" tactics. Respect the office, is all I ask. When they are CAUGHT with their hand in the till [and sheesh, there's a number of them lately...] then follow those rules set up and prosecute accordingly. I duly respect everyone's opinions. That's a given. But I do have a hard time with people taking a simple headline and without basis, shouting it until it becomes THE headline. Let's get all the facts in order, line 'em up, and shoot 'em down until they line up faster than we have bullets. When we run out of bullets, and true facts are still lined up, THEN we have to say... ok, NOW you've shown me. So far, no one has really shown me why I shouldn't vote for a man who has done HIS best for the country to date. The question now becomes, "What have I done thus far, for my country?" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, twelve responses so far, and the best pro-Bush stance is, "Well, it could be worse." It cracks me up that four years into the Bush administration, somebody is still bringing up Clinton comparisons. Hey, whatever happened with the antrax scare? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Brad, dear person...I had "that" scare. Not fun. If you want to know about it, I'll pull out the details. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, perhaps I should clarify to you that I wasn't too thrilled with Clinton either. As you know, I am young and thus haven't seen much of America go by as you. But by what I have seen, Clinton is the president I would select out of those who ruled in the past twenty years if forced to choose, being that every president in the past two decades has been mediocre. But I also saw him as rather dishonest and his lies were consequential to the Democratic Party and to a number of people, so don't go pointing your finger and chuckling away like that, as if accusing me of being a die-hard hypocrite. Besides, though Clinton will always be documented as a liar, and should be, Bush's lies have been far more fatal as they have been spoken not just outside, but underground as well. Did Clinton's lies endanger the lives and lifestyles of countless millions? Surely he disgraced himself and his Democratic colleagues but look behind the closed doors, Bush's lies are tarnishing a vast number of people as we know it. And you call him an outstanding man? Many regular civilian Iraqis are vowing revenge for the carnage upon their country. Al-Qaeda is decentralized, but far less predictable than ever in their harmful motives. Latinos, Jews, a vast number of Europeans, Indians, Koreans, ALL denouncing his actions and calling him "the greatest threat to world peace". There may have been no more 9/11's yet but 9/11 happened to have occurred during Bush's first year in office, despite a previous attempt before, but only showing Bush's failure to make any possible diplomatic act and encourage the continuing determination to harm the lives of our own people and others. The latest information by O'Neill showing that the war on Iraq was brought out of nothing but adulterated, savage hatred, manipulating our people with misleading information thus also making the war unjust, bought out of our own tax dollars which that $87 billion which most people found unnecessary to fund could have gone to public schools and health care benefits, but no. And while the economy has improved, large corporations continue to swallow up our land and earn profit from the war funding, only making them bigger and destroying the lives of traditionalists. Vote for Bush? I can think of a great number of reasons not to, but say what you want! All I know is nothing you say will get me to support a bloodthirstry, arrogant, megalomaniac pirate for office again. And yes, I fiercely oppose him and do have much bitterness in my tone to him, bu I also recognize he is human, just as beautiful as any of God's creatures. But that is no excuse to the follies he has committed, for if it was, then every president should have served two terms, three or more before Glover Cleveland. Personally, I bet I could run this nation better than President Bush, but I don't want to, as I don't want to be part of those tactics. Karilea, you make strong points here, but again, like you said, they apply globally. Therefore, you should also be considering YOU have done the best YOU can and I have done the best I can. And if you disagree, well, I think it's a bit unfair to say Bush has done HIS best either. So, allow me to say this once more. Balladeer, I shall let you go about your biasedness and I shall go about mine. In this polarized nation, both points of view are valid and as you told me, should the time come when the truth comes out and it favors my view, I will point a finger to you and say "There!", as you may do vice-versa. God Bless and may our opinions continue to be shared respectfully. Brad: LOL! Isn't that so true! It applies to every leader certainly, but that is a pretty weak argument to say "It could be worse!" when in every politician's mind it should be "How can we make it better?". Also, I agree it's outdated to just keep on throwing Clinton in the mess just to counter this argument. Clinton's reign of terror has ended, Clinton is THEN, Bush is NOW. As much as history should be taken account of, it should not interfere with the agenda of tomorrow. Seems most of what I see who argue with my views only beat Clinton like a dead horse, and personally, this is getting quite lame and pointless. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Oops, almost forgot about you, Ringo! As I have already mentioned, I was not thrilled with Clinton either, more than either Bush if I had to pick, but he was also a lousy president, even if the best in recent years since John F. Kennedy or so. I'd say out of the presidents in the last fifty years, Kennedy is the only one I'd consider "great", with Nixon getting "fairly good". Throughout the first term, I did support him, but I witnessed his flaws and because I was a boy then, I was more naive perhaps, nevertheless the disappointments I felt were nothing to the intensity of those I've felt from Bush, which I think can show my stance. And no, if Clinton four years ago had said just what Bush had said, I would be doing the same thing I did in reaction to Bush, scorning him as a bloodthirsty, arrogant pirate, same with Gore had he won office (which he really did win, but that's another story!  ). I am most certainly not a Republican, but I also don't consider myself a "new new Democrat". I am just a regular Democrat who believes the people should decide the fate of their country. Out of all the current Dems running, Edwards is the only one I have a feeling for, but sacrifices must be made and so I intend to support the front-runner, give him a chance, and should he do what Bush or Clinton did, I will simply not re-elect him, and let the next candidate have a chance, and so on, and so on, unless there comes a person who satisfies my ideal creed of a presidental role model and I'll reward him or her with a re-election vote. I can see how Balladeer put me in the hot seat, saying "AHA...well you believe in honesty, yet Clinton was dishonest, what's up with that?" and I agree Clinton was lousy, unlike a number of other leftists, but I stand by my opinions and I am not hypocrite as Balladeer might have intended to believe. However, because in fact the war happened during Bush's term, that must be considered.Finally, in response to Bush pre-9/11, I also didn't support him off the bat, but less passionately. And I'll be honest with you! When 9/11 happened and Bush for a while was being real supportive, I admired him for that because I felt the world was coming together in the most part and though of course this was tragic and should never had happened would also encourage the world with a lesson to not commit war ever again and to settle our differences through peace and compassion and never again in battle. Frankly, I was really beginning to respect Bush very much, but then, when he swore revenge and war on Afghanisan and Iraq soil, whoa boy, he sure PROVED ME WRONG, and burst that bubble! What could have been a defining moment of reunion and solace in the world rather became a vulcan of war, resentment and white hot rage. Can you consider that moment after 9/11 good handling? I think not. It could have been soooooooooo much better! Bush lost his chance! Again, know I deeply respect you, dear friend, for speaking your opinions out in a thoughtful way! Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
but 9/11 happened to have occurred during Bush's first year in office, despite a previous attempt before, but only showing Bush's failure to make any possible diplomatic act and encourage the continuing determination to harm the lives of our own people and others" That definitely takes top honors for the most incredible innuendo I have read on this topic. Thanks for the belly laugh! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I have consulted the tarot, and in so doing, I employed the use of Rider-Waite deck, and chose a simple one card reading-- The Death card in detriment (upside down) reveals: "The card represents the critical factor for the issue at hand. Death, when reversed: Stagnation or petrifaction. The refusal to let go of the past. Resistance to change because of fear." This indicates to me that the general mood of the nation is reluctance to anything new at this time due to both unstable world politics and a fluctuating economy. The witch hath spoken. (hey? it's as good as any reasoning I've seen yet.) |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You sure find my views quite amusing, don't you, Balladeer? All I am doing is expressing a point of view (which is quite common) and at least I feel that you are intentionally trying to defame me, first by seeing me as a hypocrite and secondly by calling my widely expressed view as an "innuendo"? I disagree with much of what you've said, but I'm not laughing. This is no laughing matter. Personally, I've felt hurt by your accusations and think its childish to laugh at me like that. Even if this is The Alley, all I originally intended to do was simply address my stance for the election, as I thought that's what this thread was about, but seeing this turn into a whole different thread, I wanted to add my two cents in a mature manner. I may be here sharing my thoughts, but I am not the big arguing type! I will be a jester to no one but myself! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Are we talking about wishes or what we think might actually happen? Never mind, most already know I hope for a major change, but don't see much believable freshenss from anyone throwing a hat in the ring. Think I'll vote for Gandalf. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Kacy? After noting the confusion here, I re-formed the question to "Should Bush be re-elected?" And using the same deck and method, I got this result: The Star, in detriment reveals: "The card represents the critical factor for the issue at hand. The Star, when reversed: Lost hopes, doubt and failure. Physical health and mental outlook lost in the outer darkness. Desperation leading to blind faith in false solutions." So, I have to conclude that the answer is, "prolly not"--as it's unlikely that a viable candidate will be offered as an alternative. hmmm...interesting. I'd like to add that althought the cards reveal the George W. will certainly be re-elected, he will wish he hadn't. sighs. (and sweet Noah? Hugs, you.) |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
It is often thought that anyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I disagree. A "check engine" light lights up, the driver says, "I wonder what is wrong with my car?" A doctor sitting in the front passenger seat declares, "I think the problem is your tire's air pressure is low." A lawyer sitting in the backseat behind the driver counters, "No, I don't think it is the tires, I believe the problem is that your headlights are inoperative." The mechanic sitting behind the doctor retorts, "Obviously, there is problem within your engine and is a result of either one or two causes..." He then goes on to describe the possible causes. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Noah, I apologize for making you feel that you have personally been attacked, which was not my attention, but some of the things you say make me smile. What can I say? It's certainly possible that you or another could laugh at what I say....no big deal. I feel confident enough in my convictions that laughter is not going to make me feel tarnished. Hell, half the time I SHOULD be laughed at! You state that 9/11 happened to have occurred during Bush's first year, accenting "during", almost saying by implication that Bush holds some responsibility for the action. The prudent reaction would be to smile...the other reaction would get me thrown out of Passions! "same with Gore had he won office (which he really did win, but that's another story! )." "because in fact the war happened during Bush's term, that must be considered" "Bush's lies are tarnishing a vast number of people as we know it" "while the economy has improved, large corporations continue to swallow up our land and earn profit from the war funding, only making them bigger and destroying the lives of traditionalists." "bloodthirstry, arrogant, megalomaniac pirate " "Personally, I bet I could run this nation better than President Bush, but I don't want to" "one who rules with the thirst for war, manipulations and hatred " " mocking the constitution, the rights of our people, his lobbyist government, and his usurping of our land behind closed doors" "and personally, this is getting quite lame and pointless." If you would care to substantiate any of those comments I'll stop smiling....the last one I agree with wholeheartedly. Peace  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
It's alright! No hurt feelings now. I do smile over various things you've said too, but that's the same with Ringo, Opeth, Stephanos, many of those who enjoy frequently engaging in discussions. I'm just modest and tend to feel things very deeply. Top of the noon to you, Balladeer! Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Opeth, that is a rather interesting opinion you've shared that I don't hear too often and is worth discussing, but I'm curious as of its significance here. Please continue. Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
People are rendering their opinions based on what? What knowledge do they possess with regards to politics - political science? Have they studied political science in High School, as an undergraduate, at a graduate level or do they base their opinions from what others report and take those reports to be factual? Maybe they read magazine and other types of articles here and there - and now all of a sudden they understand the concepts of American politics? "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
ah the concept of american politics... the question..will bush be re-elected is best settled in the electoral college after a popular vote. All else is folly... and argumentative folly at that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Ron, you're missing the boat! The Alley is designed to be argumentative folly!! |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
ah now 'Deer.. didn't say it was not appropriate in venue.. but my own argumentitive folly is to argue such folly is indeed argumentative folly.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, and Noah, regarding these comments of yours... "It is rather clear now that the whole Iraq war was commenced out of hatred and revenge. And no, if Clinton four years ago had said just what Bush had said, I would be doing the same thing I did in reaction to Bush, scorning him as a bloodthirsty, arrogant pirate" ....may I offer these small articles which were all pre-Bush. It is not Clinton bashing; rather it is to show the stance of the government long before Bush came into office....and the folly of calling Iraq all his bloodthirsty decision.. Clinton Says 'Mission Accomplished' By Linda D. Kozaryn American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON - Service members in the Persian Gulf did "a difficult job with skill, dedication and determination," President Clinton said at the White House Dec. 19, the last day of Operation Desert Fox. Based on preliminary national security briefings, the president said the 70-hour air strike campaign against Iraqi military targets had achieved its mission. "We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure," he reported. Overall, Clinton deemed the operation well planned and executed. He pointed out, however, that even though the strikes have ceased, the conflict with Iraq is not over. As long as Hussein is in power, the president said, he remains a threat to the world. Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says By Linda D. Kozaryn American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When he failed to do so, the United States took action. President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST - - 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. "The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said. "Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now." Less than an hour after American and British forces launched Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect the national interests of the United States and the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he deemed military action necessary to prove the international community, led by the United States, had not lost its will. Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region." "President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations." - Secretary of Defense William Cohen January 26, 1998 The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely, Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick The Anatomy of Clinton's Failure in Iraq by Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. and James A. Phillips Executive Summary #1161 • Developing a comprehensive long-term strategy to overthrow Saddam. The ultimate goal of U.S. policy should be to oust Saddam, not just contain him. Washington should help unify and rebuild the Iraqi opposition, which was weakened severely by Saddam's August 1996 invasion of the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. The United States should work closely with Turkey to cement an alliance between Kurdish groups and the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of democratic Iraqi opposition forces, and should help this coalition to set up an alternative government in northern Iraq, broadcast its appeals over a Radio Free Iraq, and lobby for international recognition. • Preparing for the next standoff. Considering Saddam's track record, it is unrealistic to expect him to abide by U.N. resolutions. The U.S. goal in the next crisis provoked by Saddam should be to attack and undermine his base of power, punish him for his transgressions, and reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors and his own people. Toward these ends, the United States should prepare to unleash a robust and sustained air campaign as part of a long-term strategy to build up Iraqi opposition forces and oust Saddam from power. Under the right circumstances, perhaps in support of an internal uprising, the United States should consider even using ground troops to finish the job of toppling Saddam. " |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Opeth, that is a rather interesting opinion you've shared that I don't hear too often and is worth discussing," ~ I did not share a matter of pure opinion. I made a declarative statement or claim if you will. ~ Indeed, some opinions are so bad, so stupid, or so dangerous that it may be hazardous or even immoral to hold them. Example: How can one be "entitled" to the opinion that people should be allowed to abuse their children whenever they want to or that human slavery is a justifiable form of labor? - Critical Thinking 301 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Opeth, I suppose that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is now considered, what, heresy? And, of course, the American government was guilty of enslavement up until the 1970's -- it was called the draft. Perhaps a bit more disturbing is this however: quote: or Balladeer's: quote: Though, of course, he actually posted some articles so presumably he meant those who only read headlines. As long as they're not American? I'm not sure if that's a valid inference yet. Why not simply argue against the points, explain why the argument is untenable, or post your opinion and leave it at that? Why insinuate that another's opinon is invalid based on an assumption that you can neither prove nor disprove? But, in all seriousness, what exactly is the correct way to form an informed opinion on the Bush administration? What should we do? Given that some of us still have the vote, how should we go about employing this vote in a responsible way? |
||
|
2writeis2be Junior Member
since 2004-01-11
Posts 45Live in London, but from TX |
"hmmm...interesting. I'd like to add that althought the cards reveal the George W. will certainly be re-elected, he will wish he hadn't." Gosh--I hope your cards are wrong about Bushyboy being reelected! But if they're not, I'll have a little more faith in the art of tarot I suppose. And a little less faith in voters. hehe. Anyway, I'm glad I started this thread--it's interesting to read people's views on all this. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, like I said before, there is about eleven months until Election Day, so almost anything can happen. So much time for something quite radical to happen on either side that could determine a whole new fate to the public opinion. Secrets may be revealed, promises may be kept, forgiveness may be made, or the most unpredictable event of chance. It is hard to predict much right now, even hard to imagine. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, in the articles I listed, two are for the armed forces news services, one from an executive order, and one from the Dept. of Defense record. They did make some papers but were not headline material, interestingly enough. I tried to look up a speech Clinton gave to Congress in 1998 concerning US stance on Iraq but received instead a message from the White House that that particular document, along with several others, had been removed from public record. My only point in printing these was to show that the government's position in the late nineties was that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs and Congress was authorizing, and even encouraging, the President to use whatever force necessay (in one document Ted Kennedy said even including the use of nuclear weapons) to remove Hussein from power. That being the case I would like to know where all of these poeple who are screaming foul for not finding WMDs were then. It's hilarious to me that even the congressmen whose signatures are on that report urging Clinton to remove Hussein from power and stating that it was a definite that wmds did exist are now joining the chorus "Where are they?" LOL! Where was Mr. Noah's indignation then? Bush did exactly what congress wanted Clinton to do and for the exact same reasons, yet he is called a warmongering hater of civilization where there was not a word spoken about the congress that initially requested it. I also posted it because I knew it would not be commented on by the Noahs because there is nothing they can say. It's all a matter of official records. No one is contesting that it doesn't exist....so they simply ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist and go back to villification for its own sake. How do we form an informed opinion of the Bush administration? Excellent question there. I don't have the answer. It's impossible to know if something has been avoided because if it doesn't happen there's no way to know. Perhaps our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our relentless pursuit and tightening of the noose around terrorist organizations, forcing them to run and hide as a primary concern, our increased homeland security, etc. have prevented other 9/11's from occuring. There's no way to know. I will take the fact that that they have NOT occured as a positive for Bush's actions. I have little doubt that the terrorist groups, inspired by 9/11, would have continued with planning and attacks on the US and US interests. I believe the economy is recovering nicely and not only for the rich and high-interest groups. I think that the majority of the Americans feel fairly secure with both their personal and economic safety. Democrats are doing everything they can to convince the populace that America is in horrible shape under Bush and they are failing because they do not have the facts to back up their allegations. So it's all personal feelings, of course. I think that, under Bush, America is in reasonably good shape and I'll vote for him. Noah may feel that America is in trouble under Bush and he will not....the beauty of the democratic way. It's either that or flip a coin |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Since we are on the subject of Noah's apparent main concern - the lying about saying Iraq had WMD's, I present the following quotes from others who seemed to share the same views. Floor speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res.45,” A Resolution to Authorize the use of United Staes Armed Forces against Iraq”, given on the senate floor, October 10, 2002. In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 So how about if we stop the rhetoric that Bush invented the WMD theory to justify his blood-lust. It simply doesn't hold water... [This message has been edited by Balladeer (01-14-2004 08:25 PM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
With over 15% undecided right now pre-election, the coin flip just might be their fate! True about some of the info you've shared, but also how about not putting all the accusations on Clinton either. This is just before Bush's father's time we're talking about when much of this came about. It is known to begin with Bush Sr. empowered Saddam Hussein financially before the whole turn of events post-Kuwait. Clinton could have taken account of this more seriously, but the dilemma began even before 1993. The Gulf War was a major disaster for Bush Sr, and though he might had gotten re-elected if not for Perot, those fatalities infuriated many to the point Colin Powell urged him to abort the mission. That folly made Saddam's first major resilience. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I think you're missing an important point, Mike. I was pretty darn sure Iraq had at least some WMD, too. But I didn't do anything about it. Holding a belief implies relatively little responsibility. Actions, however, MUST be accountable. Our leaders either lied to us, or our leaders were wrong. I'm not sure what the consequences of each of those two alternative should be, but I honestly believe there should be consequences. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree wholeheartedly, Ron, that there should be. As far as the chorus I displayed above, they have already flip-flopped from certain knowledge of WMD's to "So where are they, W?". They are not going to claim any responsibility for promoting the certainty of such weapons. Bush could certainly feel the consequences if he is not re-elected. I truly believe that the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place had it not been for 9/11. There are those who will disagree, claiming he was doing it for daddy. So be it. I feel he took the reports and information previously gathered and, because of 9/11, acted on it. The terrorists showed what they could do with boxcutters. The thought of what they could, and obviously would, do with WMD's is enough to boggle the mind. Clinton, Hillary and others claimed in no uncertain terms that Hussein was harboring and aiding terrorists groups. With all of those things taken in account, why is it so shocking to some that Hussein would be the appropriate target? I don't get it.. There used to be a lot of people screaming "It's all about oil!". They seem to have disappeared....how about that? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Noah, Sometimes there are just dangerous characters on the world stage who have to be checked. Can you even begin to imagine what this world would be like if tyrants were never stopped in their tracks? Any President worth the title will do all in his power to fulfill his foremost obligation to protect us from those tyrants. Balladeer's point from the above quotations was to show you, clearly, that all the Democratic leaders who are now foaming at the mouth, spewing forth accusations against Bush and his policies, held the very same convictions, and supported the very same policies on the very same topic. Doesn't that make you want to at least question their integrity when they can do such an unexplained about-face on such an important subject? I personally don't know how they can keep a straight face when they open their mouths, I honestly don't. Ron, I think there is a third alternative. That WMD do indeed exist...some buried deep in the desert and some spirited away to neighboring areas for safekeeping. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"This is just before Bush's father's time we're talking about when much of this came about." Sorry, Noah. All comments I listed were between 1998 and 2002, far removed from daddy Bush's time, all in Clinton's second term and beyond. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Denise, that is indeed every President's aim; to work to protect, enrich, and improve the lives of his or her people. Then again, that too is a double-edged sword. Personally I believe in civil disobediance, which has been widely valued in humanities, from Antigone to The Decameron to the foundations of our democracy. I happen to be a fond lover of Walt Whitman and his philosophy. "Resist much, obey little!" is a quintessential proverb in my opinion, and yet I have the ability to see good in about everything and forgive. While some may believe Bush is protecting Americans and the world from terrorists, they are so many who find Bush to be the greatest terror to world peace, which if not the greatest threat I find him to be a factor in interrupting the peace cycle. How then can you expect those who feel this to be protected from him? Teddy Roosevelt, who was also a Republican president, said "Placing any president above criticism or argument is morally treasonable." Indeed many like this Bush, many dislike him. Therefore I think both sides should have the right to judge him while he does his job, and those who think Bush is the deeper threat to this world should not be silenced. And as I already mentioned, I'm no Republican, but I'm also no "new democrat". I'm just a man of this world who believes in democracy. I question Clinton just as I do Bush, I judge the Dem nominees as I do Bush's cabinet, etc. I personally feel the Democratic Party has some kinks to work out, they need to unify again. Don't just let the country govern you, find how you can govern the governor! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Noah, please give me your ideas on how to best deal with the terrorist threat. What do you think would be the most effective way to provide as much protection as is possible? How would you propose to deal with these very real threats (and remember, these folks have proven that appeasement doesn't work)? And aside from the fact that Bush could not interrupt something that didn't exist in the first place (peace), don't you think that the conditions conducive to peace might sometimes have to be fought for against the tyrants of the world who have no concept of, nor respect for, peace? Do people really think that if tyrants are allowed to overrun the world, having their way from one country to the next, establishing their despotic regimes wherever they wish, that there would be peace? I guess it depends on one's definition of peace...peace with your face under somebody's boot, or peace with freedom. You can't be advocating peace at any cost, can you? I don't go along with civil disobedience as a legitimate tool of dissent. We have the right of dissent, but I believe that it should be done without the 'disobedience' aspect, within its proper outlined parameters. I think it is immature at best, and displays a lack of respect for the civil law, and by extension a lack of respect for one's fellow citizens, and at worst, it may also be the outworkings of an anarchist propensity in some people. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Just a simple reply remembering my younger years when it seems we were all so idealistic. All those who fought or were civilly and sometimes not...disobedient and demonstrated on college campuses and wanted to change our society and were anti- establishment, are those before and who now are running our government, joined the establishment to become wealthier and live more comfortably, no different than those before them. It's great to be idealistic, Noah that we will have world peace someday, but it is the ideas and actions that will accomplish and not just words of hopes and dreams. I had hoped when younger that all religions would come together so that I didn't have to worry about my family not wanting me to marry someone of a different religion because love meant more to me...and at that time couples were having double marriage ceremonies or were going to churches that were non secterian and had Ministers, Priests and Rabbis together performing the ceremonies. even that has gone backwards today...and religions are more at odds now than when I was a young adult and there was hope. I know this is a bit off the subject, but I am trying to address that young people today are no different than we were years ago. Then we grew up and realized that the President doesn't make all the decisions...and that sometimes even voting doesn't get us what we want.Itjust changes the landscape until the next vote. Just my feelings when reading how passionate you are, Noah. Each generation tries and still there is no world peace... Maureen |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
In the opinion of Hitler & his 3rd Reich, the Jewish race was worthy of genocide. I wonder what facts they utilized to base that opinion on? Will be Bush be re-elected? At this time, no one can know for certain, and that delcaration is a fact - not an opinion. "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Opeth, you apparently don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Contrary to what you think, a fact isn't defined as "something Opeth believes" and opinions aren't "what everyone else thinks." You opinion on Hitler is hearsay, your opinion on the results of the election is a deduction, and neither can be considered facts because you don't have the resources available to prove either. All you can really hope to do is convince others your opinions count for something. And that's exactly why everyone else is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how outlandish "you" think they might be. Opinion and credibility aren't the same thing. Others have a right to voice their opinions, you have a right to accept or not accept, and your decision to do the latter does NOT negate their freedom to keep talking. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Ron, I do know the difference between what is a fact and what is an opinion. By you sayng that I do not, does not make what you say true. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Maureen, bless you for jumping in and expressing yourself too! I sympathize with so much of you and all your friends and peers when you were young and the ideals that continue to juggle on! Always remember even when you may not be the college girl on the outside anymore, that blossom of youth will always be in your heart, and every idealistic instinct you have must be right in some sense! Truly I feel why so many young people are not interested in humanities, politics or social sciences today is because they either have witnessed history before their eyes and feel powerless, or they fear they'll be ostracized or suppressed for expressing themselves, fear of being made a living joke or radical out of. I have seen this myself and though much of what I may be doing may lead nowhere, I only wish to prove that the spirit lives on, the faint living colors of individuality that have been a cornerstone of this nation since the Puritans touched this soil and shaped American values. I am not that kind of arguer who makes scrapbooks out of all the headlines of newspapers and goes back to draw references on and on! I am more of an intuitive arguer, and that is still an arguer. When I "feel" passionate about something that upsets me, I know something must be done, and I don't feel that way too often. I also hunt for facts, but I believe in rather digging up the graves to hear and look at people all around you! There are too many who feel desperate and vulnerable right now, and seeing such a polarized nation, I believe one should know pretty well that Bush is a pretty unsatisfactory peoples president! That also gives me the impression that anyone such as that who creates this kind of "schism" is incapable of meeting the needs of the "people". Aside from my resentment to his actions without asking or answering questions, that has been a huge criticism of mine to him, and why I find pretty much every president in the past fifty years to be mediocre at best. What can I do alone to change all that? I'd be quite limited, but it can amount to something of good use when amalgamated together. Your comment really deeply touched my heart, Maureen! Angel hugs for you! Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Noah, as much as I enjoy interacting with all the poets, this comment quote:[emphasis added] makes me feel as if you are talking for me, and anyone else who might come across this thread. Please don't. You may know your thoughts/opinions on Bush's popularity, but not everyone will go along with your belief. State how you feel, certainly, but general assumptions should not be made unless you have proof positive facts, and then they wouldn't be assumptions. Based on your sharing over the last few years, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that you are not, and will possibly never be a Bush supporter, even if he turned around and did everything you asked him to do. I believe you would find something else wrong with his presidency. Perhaps it would be something akin to "waffling" because one person was able to "guide" him. I'm going to use myself as an example. I was elected into a state office, with some 200 members. That's great. What a chance to make a change...I thought. But this organization was far older than my time and tenure with it...and guess what? Sometimes a body of people only want a figurehead to get them from one year to the next. "Keep things as they are"..."we tried that once, didn't work then, won't work now..."..."Oh, I like the idea. I just don't think you'll get everyone on board for it." Very frustrating. And that was only 200 people. I think it was asked before, I'm not sure [perhaps in another thread] but what would your suggestions be to the world situation as it stands today? Better yet, go back to 911 - and tell me how you would have reacted in the face of what seemed at the time to be imminent danger? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I gave you many factual examples -and direct quotes - from the top Republican leaders stating that they knew beyond the shadow of a doubt wmd's existed...long before Bush was in office. Your reply was.. True about some of the info you've shared, but Nine quick words and then off to the races. Obviously facts that go against your belief are dismissed in your mind and you change the subject as quickly as possible. That's ok. Many people do that. Just recognize that your prejudices have no chance of changing no matter what. You can speak for yourself but, as Karilea says, you really can't speak for others. You can't say "most people" because you don't know most people. None of us do. Perhaps the people you associate with feel the same way but it is normal to associate with people who share commom beliefs. You will never criticize the Democrats who pushed for the invasion of Iraq with the vigor you attack Bush and I'm sure you know that.....and that's your right. I'm pretty sure I'm not changing, either So you vote for whoever opposses Bush and I'll vote for Bush and say a prayer that your chad hangs |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
There are too many who feel desperate and vulnerable right now, and seeing such a polarized nation, I believe one should know pretty well that Bush is a pretty unsatisfactory peoples president! Noah, there will ALWAYS be too many people who feel desperate and vulnerable. During the Kennedy White House (referred to as Camelot), there were people who were desperate and vulnerable. When Truman was President, People were desperate and vulnerable. During LBJ's "Great Society" people were desperate and vulnerable. During the Reagan White House, when the economy did a complete turn around from the Carter White House, People were deserate and vulnerable. It is an unfortunate, and irreversible fact of life. There is NOTHING that can be done to stop this from happening. At least in my opinion. As long as there are 20 pople in the world someone is going to be deserate and vulnerable. As for the fact that President Bush being an "unsatisfactory people's president", please give us your definition of "satisfactory". Would it be an increase in the economy at a record pace for 9 months? Would it be housing starts, and sales increasing at a record rate, so that the economy grows as a result? Would it be the fact that most of the new homes are being bought be low-middle to middle income families (I don't have the actual statistics at hand, however, if I were to buldoze my desk, I could find the report for you.)? How about having unemployment drop steadily for a period of 6 months at rates faster than even the experts predicted? Maybe having an increase in education spending (even though more money has NEVER helped before) would make someone a satisfactory "people's" president. All of these things happened within the last year, which would prevent them from being a hold-over from the Clinton era. I do realize, and I am willing to accept that president Clinton ALSO did good things for the economy. He also threw more money at the education system, and it is still as screwed up as it was before. He also brought the subject of socialized medicine to argument (and would have had my support except for a few "glitches" that I saw). All of these would make him a good "people's president". HOWEVER... He also taught our children that it was acceptable to practice the ancient art of infidelity. He also taught our kids that lying under oath was an acceptable way of conducting yourself. He also did many other things that were not something a "people's president" would do. I am not bringing up these particular events to bash president Clinton. I have already noted that I thought he did many good things for the country. I only use thses examples as they are where this thread goes most often (myself included). Other presidents have also done good things and rotten things within the scope of their administration. President Bush v1.0 PROMISED to end the increasing taxes... and then within the space of a year and a half signed the largest tax increase in history. President Reagan was caught up in the Iran-Contra hearings, and proved to the kids of America that it was OK to do something illegal, and then not accept responsibility for your actions by pinning the entire event on the shoulders of a man who has "conveniently died just 2 weeks before. Nixon... well, that's all that needs to be said... or is it? While he was, and still is villified for Watergate, he also ended American involvement in the last "unpopular" armed conflict. He improved Russo-American relations. He re-opened trade relations with China. He ended the draft, he started the EPA, he brokered the first nucear arms treaty, he eased tensions in the Middle East... and many other things... The point of my rambling, Noah, (and thank you for indulging me), is that NO President can be revered as a "People's President" or cursed for being the worst thing for this nation. It took me many years of growing up (as an adult) to realize that. EVERY man who sits in the Oval Office plants his backside in that chair claiming that he is going to be the "People's President" and do the best job any one has ever seen... and as long as that chair is being occupied by anyone who cannot claim divinity status, he (or she) is going to fail. So no, Noah, he is an unsatisfactory people's president... then again, so is ever other president to have been elected. Oh, and Noah... To comment on a point that you made in an earlier post about Kennedy being great. President Kennedy never got the chance to be either great, or horrific. He was in office for just over a year and a half, and during his tour of duty, he got us into the Vietnam conflict, (although LBJ is responsible for that going sour), He got caught with his hand in Cuba's cookie jar, he committed MASS infidelity in the White House (and Oval Office), was suspected of having Marylin Monroe killed, and many other things that he would have been slammed for, had his brother not been the one responsible for investigating him, and bring that information to the public's attention. And I will be signing copies of this novel at a book store near you Cause in my dreams it's always there The evil face that twists my mind And brings me to despair. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's a portion of a commentary by Hal Lindsey that is pertinent to our discussion: Kennedy, like most Democrats, suffers from a strange malady best described as "ASM – Awful Short Memory – disease." In his speech, Kennedy praised former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, whose just-released book said Bush had been planning for a regime change in Iraq since shortly after taking office. This was another clear symptom of a severe attack of "ASM disease." Congress actually passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 – when President Clinton was in office – which made regime change in Iraq a matter of public law. But then who bothers to remember such details? Public Law 105-338 says, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Teddy Kennedy voted for it, and Bill Clinton signed it. If Bush hadn't had plans in place for such an eventuality, he would be guilty of ignoring the will of the Congress and American people. Regardless, Kennedy called the invasion of Iraq "a war of choice, not of necessity." He laid out what he called a timeline of the "drumbeat to war" that made America "a lesser and less respected land." "ASM disease" is actually a blessing for the Democrats. Even though they pass laws and express strong opinions about certain issues, they can later denounce them when they become unpopular or politically expedient. Of course, the fact that most Americans are afflicted with this same dread disease makes such adroit maneuvers possible. And armed with "righteous indignation" at the Republican implementation of such "lunatic policies" (for which, thanks to "ASM," the Democrats have no culpability), they can scream at them for wantonly attacking Iraq without authorization. "ASM" provides other benefits, too. Since Democrats can focus such "righteous wrath" on the Republican administration for starting an unjust war, they can also draw attention away from the incredibly astounding benefits that have resulted from the defeat of Iraq: Libya has renounced terrorism, given up its weapons of mass destruction and invited the United States to send in inspectors. Iran has agreed to nuclear inspections, and the ruling mullahs there are barely hanging on to power. Afghanistan is preparing to elect a government and Pakistan and India are seeking a way to end their conflict over Kashmir. Syria is even running scared and making overtures to negotiate with Israel for peace. But by far the most revealing line of Kennedy's speech was this one: The administration has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth. This shows that he has reached the extreme stages of the dread disease of "ASM" – or else he couldn't have made this statement with a straight face. It reminded me of that other great Kennedy quote, from 1973, just four years after the death of Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquidick. He asked, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" Only "ASM" can account for such hypocritical audacity. And it would seem that Kennedy has shown symptoms of "ASM disease" from his early youth. If Bush was lying about the reasons for war, using it as a political tool for re-election, then what was the motive behind comments made in 1998 by Clinton's secretary of State, Madeline Albright? She gravely warned: Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. Or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's motives when she said in 1998: As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. What about Clinton's secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, who said in April 2003: I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons ... I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. WOW! "ASM disease" makes anything possible. It's a real killer. Complete article can be read at the link below: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36618 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's another commentary, this one by William Rusher entitled "Who's Lying?": http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36509 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
George Bush said: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."—Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003 |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like talking anymore here. I'll let you carry on about your thoughts and opinions on whatever, but I've certainly come to realize now The Alley just isn't my place. Not where I actually believe I'm being accused as an evasive, waffling hypocritical young man with "awful short memory". Personally I feel this is just why so many young people like myself feel crushed and afraid to discuss their views and feelings. It's not my fault I read books in high schools from faulty historians who discussed history and their opinons of figures as they'd like. Forgive me if I may seem quite melodramatic, but I truly felt somewhat insulted here and just can't play that kind of hardball. Not my fault I'm in the early stages of my English major and have yet to develop the basis of critical thinking skills. I shall go quietly in peace and stick to the poetry I do best, but I just cannot take this kind of pressure here. I just get emotional too easy. I'll gladly leave this to those who can relate to others who have more experience and I will be the freelance artist on the street corner enacting my feelings and visions. Can't go wrong there! Peace to all! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Noah, I'm insulted by your being insulted. (In a nice way of course )With friends like these . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I can assure you there was no intention to "gang up" on you. We were simply presenting opposing viewpoints which is what the Alley is for. We all recognize you for the kind person you are and I have little doubt that whatever you decide to do with your life, you will be successful because you have a passion for life. Peace to you.... ...and, regardless of Brad's small insinuations, we ARE your friends. COunt on it... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Do not get me wrong, what's been said does not ruin the friendship that I share with you all. I love you all very much and even if I disagree with a certain number of things you say, somehow resent some specific words directed my way, none such words can break the utmost warmth I feel from your artistic, colorful and graceful hearts, as I believe we are all brothers and sisters of God and the common bond must not be broken, so I will move on, forgive the tears I've dispensed out of anxiety, frustration and fear, and continue to delightfully spread the living word of friendship and grace among you, my siblings in heart! Though I still simply feel I do not quite belong in this league of discussion, experiencing this world fewer years and having not witnessing those previous events you have witnessed which puts me on a whole different page, and though I do take certain words, which sometimes sound like accusations, to heart, know that it is just me quite a lot. Think of me as a softy with passionate tendencies! Being overly sentimental over certain thoughts, I do not wish to baffle you, so I will leave this grand discussion clear. Angel friendship hugs for all! Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Noah- I have to take issue with a few of your statements... and I believe you might be a bit suprised at which... You said that you felt you were being accused of being an evasive, waffling, hypocritical, young man with an aweful short memory. Having re-read the post, I don't believe that was Denise's intention. She was, I think (only she can answer for sure), talking about the "leaders of the free world"... those whom we elect to run this insane asylum we call America. I have only been a member of Passions for 10 months or so, and I have read, with great interest, your thoughts on many subjects, and your views on your world. In 10 months, I have NEVEr seen you waver from what your thoughts have always been. You are so rock steady in your beliefs that I could almost perfectly predict what you were going to say in this issue. You? Waffle? I think not. As far as reading the "faulty yearbooks" we all read the same books... it is our own prejudices and thoughts of reality, along with those whom we are being taught by, that determine how we understand exactly what that book was actually saying. As for your critical thinking skill... It is true that you tend to speak with your heart more often than most of those of us who are far too jaded, however it is obvious that you are not just spouting some knee-jerk babble without having given your world some thought. And the fact taht you don't have the grey hair, wrinkles, and battle scars that many of the others here have, your thoughts and opinions are just as important and just as valuable as anyone elses... You are the one who is going to be running our nursing home one day. And if it seems like you are bsing singled out in this discussion, then- looking back on the entire thread- it is because you are the only one who is really offering anything that could be considered as a minority opinion. Were it not for your passion, and your desire for us to see your position, this would be a thread of President Bush supporters, and a few soundbites by those who are not. In short... I hope to see you here again. Cause in my dreams it's always there |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
There's a fair chance Tony Blair will be irreparably damaged at the beginning of February once the Hutton Enquiry reports. That would be a start, eh? Who knows? One day we might realise that liars shouldn't be leaders. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Noah, to clarify a point re: "waffling" - if you are picking out that point as an attack on you - that is not what I said. My point was, that if you could give Bush your agenda, and found him to go along with it, then you might later accuse him of "waffling" should he heed your guidance. No, you yourself stand very firm in your beliefs. One thing I learned at your age, was that there was no way I was going to do much but listen to my elders [I did not have your verbal skills or passions - they were still maturing inside] and another lesson I learned, was not to make assumptions for the general populace. So keep reading, and keeping growing. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Noah, Ringo is right, I wasn't accusing you of having ASM, I just posted some commentary regarding the previous statements of our leaders, who obviously do, who are now attacking Bush, who is doing nothing more than following through with their previously stated positions. If we can't honestly look at these things and see the obvious hypocrisy of it all, then how can we possibly hope to make informed decisions at the polls? The game of politics is a dirty deceitful business and we have to shovel through a lot of bull (from both sides) to try to ascertain the truth of things, as much as is in our ability to do so. Passion and feelings are fine, but absent our critical thinking we can be led astray. From my experience, most politicians play to our feelings and hope we leave our brains out of the equation. We can't let them have that kind of power over us. It is our duty as citizens to study the issues and to make informed decisions. And you don't need a Critical Thinking course to do it. What you do need is the desire to keep an open mind, a desire to study the issues, a willingness to hear all sides of any given issue, and the discipline to sit down and sort through it all to determine your own convictions. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
~ Critical Thinking should be a standard subject matter to be taught in our nation's classrooms. ~ The point I am making here is that too many people (in my experiences) arrive to their political beliefs, views, etc., without understanding the "guts" of American politics - lacking political knowledge, but arrive to what they believe based on a their upbringing (subculture), and later as an adult, biased reporting and reading and understanding what their biased wants to hear, which stimulates and strengthens their subjective "train-of-thought." The result? A firm belief in what is not true, but what certainly "feels" right. ~ The truth is that both the democrat and republican parties are much more alike than what the laymen believe. The main goal for both of these parties is to stay in power - the peoples' needs are at the very most a secondary goal. And of course, the way to stay in power is to gain more and more constiuents, which special interest groups and clienteles are the constiuents most highly desired. ~ For certain, political candidates personally & emphatically support a variety of causes, however if there is a shift in the special interests of a party (clientele changes), these candidates will either have to change (waffle) their views or change party affiliation. ~ What does that mean? It means in a pragmatically and slow moving government, most elected members will waffle IF the special interests of party affiliatoin shifts and clienteles change. ~ This is why it is all too easy for people to line-up on one side or the other in the policial spectrum - 2 extremely powerful political parties, one on each end: A spectrum that expands when more controversial issues come into the forefront and contracts when controversy is at a minimum. ~ One party is neither worse nor better than the other. It doesn't really matter who is at the helm (the process is fixed so no maniacal leader could ever get elected into the higher offices at the very least). It is when the government NEEDS to act, due to controversial or nation-critical issues, when any meaningful and population-affecting changes will actually take place in our country. ~ Therefore, rest easy, even if your presidential candidate doesn't get elected. It is not the elected president whom will produce change, but the need for change itself. "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." |
||
|
gemjop Member Elite
since 2002-11-18
Posts 2587Pencilveinia, USA |
I'm sitting here, having read throught the post, still enraged with a few of the first comments. why should someone from another country be slated, and their viewpoint be attacked because they are from another country? quite unbelievable. You could say what you want about tony blair and i wouldn't attack any of you saying "don't you think youve got other things to think about what with bush" why shouldnt he/she of expressed their opinions? Why so defensive? So an english or other origins opinion is not valid? and then you said sorry because you found out they were american, oh so their point is valid now!!! How ironic that i've just taken an exam on prejudice, discrimination and sterotyping, and find it here. You've made me feel quite unwelcome. I am intelligent enough to have my own opinions on this subject, and feel that my opinion is just as valid or relevant as any american persons. but would fear to voice any kind of opinion i had due to the fact that it has been clearly illustrated that i shouldnt have an opinion on president bush as i don't reside in his country!! why do you assume that someone from another country would have less of a realistic idea of whats going on than someone who lives in america? ~I wanna live, I wanna give, I've been a miner for a heart of gold~ Neil Young |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
gemjop, I certainly regret your being enraged by the comments here. As I stated, this was a throwback to threads previously posted here advising us exactly wht was so wrong with our country, how 9/11 was all our fault and even lambasting us for breaking away from Mother England in the first place. Any person from any country has to right to have and voice opinions over world events. When they begin to criticize what is happening with the interior of the country, however, basing their accusations on nothing but gossip, headlines and whoever is speaking the loudest, they are out of line. I would certainly not attempt to chastize Austrailia for the aborigine situation no more than I would stick my two cents in over pudding lumpiness in Picadilly Square because I would not be qualified to do so. Actual situations may be far different than what headlines, who are doing their best to sell papers, proclaim. When this person, who we mistakenly took for being English, made references to the Florida elections (with all the wrong facts) and the Latin citizenship situation then, yes, I would always say what I said, in the same way you could possibly say the same to me for getting involved with criticism and baseless accusations over interior situations in your country. The appropriate remark is "Mind your own business." World situations are, of course, different because we are all affected by world events and everyone's opinion carries equal weight. I don't know if I've made this clear or not but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.... |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Gemma- As I was the first to make the statements that you are upset by, I am going to adress them (from my viewpoint, anyhow). This entire thing with president Bush is a "family" fight... jsut as any contreversy within the Parliment or Royal family SHOULD be a "family fight" for Brittons. If one has a family member who is being atacked from within the family, one does not wish the neighbors dow the block offering their opinions, or getting involved in the discussion. A friend of mine who spent some time in the UK gets a paper sent over from London every day (of course, it takes a week or so to get here...) and I read it simply because I am fascinated by the differences in the wawy the words are put together, and by the way that other cultures view shared experiences such as the Gulf conflict and the war on terrorism, and such. I also have a few opinions about the Labour Party, and the difficulties that Prime Minister Blair had with parliment during the crisis, and even a couple on the "announcement" that Prince Charles may, or may not have been involved in his ex-wife's death... HOWEVER, I do not feel that it is my place to discuss such matters for any other reason than I am not a member of the "family" so to speak. And as I said, it is not for ANY American to chastise or speak ill about anything of the sort. It would be like me coming into your house and making comments about your maiden Aunt Millie, or your drunken cousin Sylvester, or the Crazy butler Jeeves... It is just not my business. You have been a valued member of Passions much longer than I have and you should never feel unwelcome on these hallowed blue pages. Besides...I'm an American. As crude and as crass as we are, you should understand that we have a tendancy to speak in a most boorish manner. lol Cause in my dreams it's always there |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
the only good thing that would result from Bush being reelected would be that i would be able to assume a very reasonable loan on a nice house here in town... because the aunt and uncle have vowed that they're giving us the house, packing up, and moving to Belize the moment the votes declare him winner. still not sure if the tradeoff's worthwhile...  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I certainly hope we never hear Balladeer or Ringo give an opinion on states or even cities in which they don't live. It would be best, I'm sure, if they just minded their own business? Somehow, back-pedaling never seems to make ill advised reactions any less ill advised. Dismissing someone's opinions because of where they live, what they wear, the color of their skin, their gender or social status, for any of the other thousand reasons people inevitably find is just plain wrong. You blew it, guys. Instead of trying to justify it, maybe you should just admit you blew it? |
||
|
Brad Majors
since 2001-04-03
Posts 2647Georgia |
Even though I have reservations about some of the descions he makes he does stick with them. I admire for that. Also looking at the choices we have (bleak to say the least). The only one I really like is liberman but he will in the end lose because of his faith. I do have to say Dean is honest but can't see him winning because he is his worst enemy. All in all where is snoopy when you need him |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hm. Funnily enough, the 'family business' of US politics happens to resonate all the way around the world. We don't live in a community of individual little countries now, merrily going about their own business. We live in a global society - and I hate to say it, but who the US president is, and what that administration does, affects all countries - whether they're capitalist, communist, democratic, developing or developed etc etc. Example: NZ doesn't support the war on Iraq - we miss out on a Freetrade agreement with the States. This affects our export/import abilities with many countries, not just the US. It ain't family business guys...it's world business. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When I was living in Venezuela in 1972, the first gay marriage in the US, in California, was performed. What did I hear from the Venezuelans? "American men are up there marrying each other!" I tried to explain that that was a fluke, completely out of the norm, but it didn't matter. To many of them America had then become a land where the men were going around marrying each other. Did they have a right to give their opinion? Sure. Did their opinion have any validity? Nope, because they had no idea what they were talking about, giving full validity to a newspaper headline to form their opinion. I can give all kinds of opinions from everything to the Croats and Serbs to the Palestinian issue to the Irish situation to relations between North and South Korea - to whatever. Do I expect my opinions to be taken seriously? Nope - I haven't been there, I don't really know the reality of the subjects. Shall I debate with Brad over North Korea? Hardly. He is there with first hand knowledge and I'm reading newspapers. At any rate, my point here was not that people did not have the right to give opinions. This was not about opinions. It was about direct derrogatory statements from people far removed from the actuality of what was being referred to. so in turn, he is trying to save his butt by getting the mexicans on his side do u think this time he'll be elected fairly or will he need his brother to get him out of the crap again? These are not opinions....they are simply negative slurs. I didn't see any "In my opinion..." Anyone in any country can say them but that doesn't mean they carry any validity, and less validity the further away the speaker lives. I could scream out, "English, stop trying to shove religion down Irish throats and get out!" I would expect at very least a 'mind your own business. You don't know what you're talking about'. Be all that as it may, I think what Ringo is referring to and me also in a way is this.... Black Americans call each other the N word constantly. It's part of their vocabulary. Poor is the whitey who tries it.... |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hey Mike...some people in other countries do actually know what they're talking about lol... I get my information on the US from what I read, that's true, and from talking to my friends in the States. I even get to watch Bush give little speeches, and Powell and whatsisname - Rumsfeld? I also watch BBC world news and CNN - guess that means I get the same sources of information that some people in the US get (albeit, mere 'headlines' and who on earth trusts journalists these days? It's all so horribly slanted). But I'd bet, that from the information that's presented to me, I probably know MORE about US policies than some non-politically minded US citizens. Doesn't make me an expert though. I'm definitely living in far far away bliss. However, some people in far far away countries are actually employed to understand the workings of other governments. I'm sure they, at least, know what they're talking about eh?   K |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By the way, Ron, I would NEVER give a flat statement or strong opinion over a city or state where I don't live or don't know anything about. There are too many variables, too many scenes behind the scenes which I would not be aware of. Shall I give an opinion about the Friends of the St. Joe River fighting industry and hog farmers over pollution? Hardly. What if there is a town in Alaska where illegal seal hunting goes on and the fact is that, without this activity the town would die as the seal provides the only food, clothing fuel, etc for their existance? Shall I just proclaim "Seal hunting is wrong!" and leave it at that? I may give opinions but don't worry about me passing judgement over unknown places or events....ain't gonna happen. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right you are, Severn, but you have missed the point, I'm afraid. I would venture to say that many people in the world know more about American politics than Americans, the same as they know more about geography, speak more languages, etc, etc. It is a weakness of America that our schools give less importance to the rest of the world on these subjects. When I went back to Missouri from Venezuela one of the old-timers at the local bar asked me where I had been. I replied Venezuela. His response was "Is that somewhere near Africa?" Sadly that is not uncommon. Perhaps it is because we are basically isolated geographically from the world. Yes, of course, Canade is there, along with Central and SOuth America but many Americans don't know anything about them. Go to the farmlands of the midwest and see how many people can name 3 countries of central America....forget it. ALso we don't have to rely on any foreign languages.....well, of course, in Florida, Texas, and California they will disagree but in the heartland of America English is all they need - or know. From the 4 years I lived in Europe I can safely say, from what I saw, the average student could run circles around an American kid of the same age with regards to the world and world events. I also agree that the presidency of the United States is indeed important to the world since we have been placed in a "leadership" role, and I believe the rest of the world pays a lot of attention to American politics. I would fully respect your, or anyone's, opinion on the US presidency or government. You could even make me see it in a different light as a view from a country in which American policy affects. So I would never discredit your opinion. If, however, you want to denigrate an American leader, without fact and having no idea what you are talking about, I will certainly not take you seriously...or anyone else. Those are the types of comments I was referring to which has got this ball rolling.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, your Venezuelans are just as likely to live in Miami or Dallas as in Valenzuela. You're describing ignorance, not geographics. How much time do you spend in D.C.? In New York? Maybe you should avoid criticizing Clinton in the future, since you obviously have no direct knowledge of anything pertinent. You're just reading the same headlines and reports that are available anywhere in the world. By your logic, your interpretation of those reports is necessarily blurred by distance and therefore less valid than the opinions of someone who lives closer. I suspect what you're really trying to say is that there's a cultural slant inherent in any interpretation of the news. And you're absolutely right. But that cultural slant isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it make anyone's opinion invalid. You'll find much the same differences in cultural slant between metropolitan Florida and rural Michigan, between Gary, Indiana, and New Orleans. Diversity and distance off adds perspective, a counter to the all too common inability to "see the forest for the trees" phenomenon. When the only opinions about the White House that matter are those shaped by close proximity to the White House, we'll all be wading through a very deep pile of serious trouble. Ignorance should indeed be fought, not by discounting it, but through education. And to assume ignorance based on nationality is, well I'm sorry, but that's just plain ignorant. Or … a really, really easy way to avoid countering the issues being raised. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why shouldn't Bush be reelected? Without going through an endless list, I'll try to look at three points, I hope, quickly: 1. Most people, perhaps, would regard the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as successes and that's fair enough. But those of us who harbored reservations or a more nuanced approach to these events, have always been worried about what happens after we win. Fukuyama, here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fukuyama.htm makes the claim that much of what is going on is the result of an administration unwilling to come to terms with its own ambitions. Other factors include the national debt and constitutional problems, but it seems fairly clear that the Bush administration is not particularly adept at handling, well, administration. I'll add some stuff later concerning the recent Supreme Court issues and the IMF censure. 2. Which leads us to the issue of image. Many have pointed out to me that they see Bush as tough talking, no-nonsense kind of guy and that's what they like. Few of these same people, however, seemed to have noticed the constant backpedaling that goes on, must necessarily go on, in order to play the game of politics. As I write this, Colin Powell has an essay in "Foreign Affairs" arguing that the Bush administration is not trying to 'go it alone' but to actively involve other nations in their goals. In principle, I see nothing wrong with this type of manuevering, but what it shows is that the Bush administration is as political as they come. So, are people being duped? Two more quick points: First, the Supreme Court is going to listen to arguments concerning constitutional infringements by this administration and, while we don't know the outcome of this, it at least shows concern for, or the lack of concern from, this administration's view of the constitution. Second, I think image is important. A good image is extremely useful in getting the nuts and bolts kind of cooperation to get what you want done done. Bush just doesn't seem very good at doing this. Proof? Well, Talk to a non-American and see what they say (No, it is not all rabid hate, but most people I've talked to don't see him as particularly competent). A quick example of this is Rumsfield's comment concerning British involvement in Iraq. It is factually true that we didn't 'need' the British in order to topple the regime, but politically what is the point of making such a statement? Is it stupid or xenophobic? I simply don't see a positive spin here. Krugman, Herbert, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html http://nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16HERB.html and Kinsley (not here) have described this administration as radical. I may have to go into more detail later on this, but suffice to say is that this administration is unpredictable. The rest of the world simply doesn't know what it's going to do next. 3. A minor point but truly bizarre: http://slate.msn.com/id/2093466/ Why in the world would the first lady lie about a bad poem? Since when did being stupid become a positive point for being the leader of the most powerful country in the world? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I would NEVER assume ignorance based on nationality nor did I say that. My comments to Severn should make that clear. I will say, however, that access to information is an important factor in determining how accurate statements can be. Those campesinos in Venezuela, for example, had much less access to information as do many people in many areas. They have their local newspaper, local news station and little else. At any rate that is still not the point, which you seem to have missed. My problem was not with opinions...it was with criticisms spoken as facts from someone not able, or willing, to research the topic in question enough to give validity to the smear. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
One thing about Brad, he does research his comments and that's an admirable trait. As far as your last question is concerned......about 12 years ago |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I'm beginning to wonder why in the world I ever asked "HEY"...mea culpa! Especially during an election year. Wait a minute.... Maybe not. At least we know where we all stand as a poetical, political, society.... and you know what? I see this. We may all stand for different things, and different people, but all in all? When we are needing one another? Doggone, but we come together really well. [And this comment, I am sure, will fall by the wayside, says the person who has been called PollyAnna and the one who wears rose colored glasses...] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, Fukuyama makes some good points. We do need to invest the time, manpower, and money needed to enable these nations to one day stand on their own. Nothing less is acceptable, in my opinion. If we don't want to get involved to that degree, then we shouldn't get involved at all. But not getting involved at all is something that we can't afford either when our national security may be on the line. I don't think most people are being duped. Politicians are political. I'm sure most folks realize that. I don't really see a necessary contradiction with one being political and being a strong leader at the same time. We need someone at this point in history to take a firm stand against terrorism. I think Bush fills that need despite his shortcomings in other areas (the expansion of Medicare and the illegal alien issue for example). I think all possible issues of our nation considered, the threat of terrorism and how our leaders plan on protecting us as much as is possible, is at the top of the list for most Americans. And I think in Bush they see someone who has the intestinal fortitude to meet that threat head-on. For that reason alone I think he will be re-elected, and I think he should be. Now if there were an opponent who was strong on defense and the terrorism issue who was also strong on sealing our borders and against the 'socialization' of our society through big-government programs (I firmly believe that charity should be in the private domain, not a function of the state) then they would get my vote. But I haven't come across that option to date. As for the Constitution, much of its spirit was abandoned ages ago, in my opinion. I would be more surprised to hear of leaders actually upholding it rather than hearing accusations of it being violated. As for Laura attributing that poem to her husband, why I think that's grounds for divorce! Balladeer, ROTL  ...about 12 years ago...good one! Karilea, Yes, we do come together really well, don't we? That's what really matters! |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
in the same way you could possibly say the same to me for getting involved with criticism and baseless accusations over interior situations in your country. The appropriate remark is "Mind your own business." and It would be like me coming into your house and making comments about your maiden Aunt Millie, or your drunken cousin Sylvester, or the Crazy butler Jeeves... It is just not my business. The first doesn't surprise me, it's quite typical considering. With the internet offering unlimited access to information from within and without the United States I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person is unable to formulate their own opinion simply because they're not within your borders. There are foreign political analysts who do this for a living but I guess they should mind their own business as well. As for the second comment, I'm stunned considering the source. It borders on racism. Had you said "eating fried chicken and watermelon" to an african american member you'd have been labeled a racist and strung. But you're comments are no less offensive. It's the kind of stereotypical garbage that should be edited and I know Gemma deserves an apology for that. |
||
|
Wind
since 2002-10-12
Posts 2981 |
I should stay quiet, but I agree with Raph's comment entirely. I won't get into it any more than that for fear of losing control because I'm sure to get edited. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Those gaining their knowledge and worldview from the internet need to be very cautious and skeptical |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Pete, those gaining their knowledge and worldview from any single source or medium should be equally cautious. Rumor has it that Fox news, in sufficiently high dosages, can lead to physical brain damage. That's not the point. The point is, if you disagree with someone's knowledge and worldview, you address your differences with them, you don't just dismiss the person because of nationality. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, let me say (for about the 4th time, I think) I would dismiss no one's opinion, no matter where they are from. I would, however, dismiss their name-calling and factless branding in an insulting manner, moreso if they are from other countries. As Local Rebel so adroitly pointed out, "He may be an idiot, but he's my idiot." |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Ron, on your first point, you are conspicuously correct. Unfortunately, all availabel source of information are biased, one way or another. On your second point, you are probably at least partially right (see the above evaluation of all sources). But without doubt, getting all your information for "the other sources" will not only cause brain damage but probably will lead to complete stupidity. At least Fox does present "the other side" which the other networks steadfastly refuse to even consider. For that, they have my undying thanks. Pete |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Raph- That statement is racist, how???? Aunt Millie could be from Peterborough, or Alabama, or Melbourne... Sylvester could be from any of the above places as well... As far as Jeeves... that is a "standard" name for butlers in comedy, literary works, or anything else... as a matter of fact, there is a search engine, as I am sure you are aware, "ask jeeves".... Again, I ask... where is the racism? Cause in my dreams it's always there |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I said it borders on racism, but it is definitely and most obviously stereotypical. You could have chosen any number of images or metaphors but you chose the quintessential/comic view of a british family while replying to a Briton. Have the decency to admit you've made an error in judgement, or at the very least offer Gemma an apology for remarks that could be construed as offensive. Whether they were meant to be or not, they are. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Pete American newspapers,major networks,PBS and even news shows like 60 minutes have websites on the net. I'm not talking about random geocities web pages dedicated to the topics. I'm talking about the same 'respectable' sources americans get their news from. |
||
|
*Belabebeautiful*
since 2003-01-03
Posts 696washington, USA |
wow that was a lot of reading! As for my own personally opinion I do hope that Bush gets re-elected and I actually get to Vote for the first time this year(yay!) and I plan on voting for him. While reading I heard some very valid points and some very weak ones. In dealing with things like politics I think that one is intitled to there own opinion but not without fact to back it up. Nothing bothers me more than an ignorance on these type of issues. I would like to restate for the record that Gov. Bush had Nothing to do with Pres. Bush getting elected! I should also probably state that I am a very strong republican though I do tend to lean democratic on a few issues and I always try to find merit in the opposing parties point of view and lately watching the democrates in their campains I would have to say that I would vote for Bush for the sole purpose that the democratic party this year has not presented to me anything of value that I would consider better than what I already have(meaning Bush)and quite frankly they seem a bit "wishy-washy" in their arguments. This next piece being directed to Noah, I really enjoy your work and you seem sincerly sweet and a wonderfull loving person but no matter how much I twist and turn I cannot see things from your point of view and have been abstaining myself from getting angered my what you have said about my president by the simple fact that I believe very strongly in freedom of speech. True, that some of Bushes dicisions I have disagreed with and I believe that he has made some mistakes but so has every president. The thing that I think really ties my to Bush in the end is the fact that he has stuck by his word, in my view of course. Whether what he said he was going to do was good or bad he stuck with it and followed through and I respect that in any person greatly and I find it a VERY admirable quality in any high status figure in this country since there are so few of them anymore. I will also be the first to admit that I do not agree with him on several of the issues that he has adressed in the past few years but yet another thing that grabbed me and has held me steadfastly to him is that I watched a live television broadcast of him at ground zero on the 6th month or year aniversary of 9/11, I can't remember which, and he went around that ring of people and he reached out to each of them and huged wifes and sons that were missing there lost spouses and parents he held children and talked to familys. Three times they tried to start the actual ceremony and get him up on stage and three times he ignored him untill he had gotten through that intire circle of people. That touched me very profoundly because that showed me that he cares about the people in this country. He cares about our feelings and our wellfare and that to me is on the top of my list of things that a president should care for, his people. So whether his dicisions have been wrong or right or whether he is an "evil tyrant" or just a good normal man that makes some mistakes, I sincerely hope that he gets re-elected because I know that he cares about me and I know that no matter the damage he will make sure his people are safe. But this is just my view I really don't like politics and keep up to date on them just for the simple reason that I care about this country. In saying that I hope that if Bush does not get re-elected that someone who cares about OUR welfare will because we really truly are blessed to live here in this beautiful country no matter what the evils that take place here it seems to me its a lot better than any place else. GOD BLESS AMERICA! ~Live and Laugh~ Because of you I laugh a little harder, smile a little more, and cry a little less ~Bella~ |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Bela....I think most people think their home country is 'a lot better than any place else.' I know I do Mikey Man...I understand where you're coming from on this...the thing is....do you see all derogatory comments toward a US president (past or present) as factless branding? Or does there need to be an insulting manner attached? It just seems to me that if a person - from any country - has a negative opinion toward a president it may well come out sounding insulting... you know what I mean? How would a person say 'I think the government of _____ is doing a crap job' in a way that would be considered positive by the denizens of that country? Furthermore, how would that person then indicate that their opinion was more than factless branding, if there was a determination to believe otherwise? Another So if I say - I think the Bush administration made an error of judgement by going against the will of the UN, despite the result of removing a dangerous tyrant. I also feel there needs to be more of an emphasis toward rebuilding the infrastructure of a ruined nation (yes yes, soldiers from many nations (even NZers) are over there attempting just that, I know). I also feel that the reason of finding WMD was grossly exaggerated as a motivation. Therefore, having said the above - I don't particularly like the Bush administration, and feel it is weak. Add the whole mission to Mars nonsense in election year and the whole thing starts to look preeeeeeeetty bad to me. Is this factless branding? It's not delivered in an insulting manner - but is there really any difference to you when it comes down to it? K |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What's truly frightening, Mike, is that you don't see a problem with that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hi, there, Severn! No, I don't see all derrogatory comments factless branding at all and I certainly feel anyone has the right to any opinion. Everything you said in your reply was right on in my book. You can dislike him as a person if you like, his administration, his policies or whatever and I will certainly respect your thoughts, whether I agree with them or not. What pushed my button and what I was referring to were the comments like And do u think this time he'll be elected fairly or will he need his brother to get him out of the crap again? That is just a ridiculous statement, with no base, intended to be said for insult only. I cannot imagine you saying something like that, for example. People will see, and believe , what they want. There are those on this thread who here, or on other threads have called Bush a warmonger for going into Iraq. Have there been any comments to all of the examples I posted of the Democratic leaders certainties of wmd's and call to the President (Clinton) to go into Iraq? Any comments on Denise's examples or Ringos or any others? Not a one - basically because they are a matter of record and irrefutable....so they are ignored while the people still scream warmonger. Ok, they can do that - but I'm certainly not going to take them seriously or validate whatever points they are trying to make. Anyway, the pointless insults are what tweak me. If I were to say, "Had Princess Diana not turned into a drunk, maybe she wouldn't have been out that night carousing". A dumb statement, for sure, and I would expect anyone who respects her to take offense. I do the same... |
||
|
inot2B Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205Arkansas |
The orginal question, Will Bush be re-elected? I would like to answer. Yes, Bush will be reelected. Yes, I will vote for him, because I feel he is the best choice. No, I don't agree with everything he stands for, but I do agree with more of his policies than anyone else. I don't care what other people think of him, they're not going to change my mind or take up my time by arguing with them. Thank God & America we can vote for anyone we feel inclined to. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040202&s=borosage |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! The Nation, Brad? That's what you come up with to present an unbiased opinion of Bush? You've been gone way too long.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When did I ever say I was presenting unbiased material? Nevertheless, if the numbers are wrong, it shouldn't be too difficult to find stuff to counter it. Does Bush have the worst job record of any president since the Great Depression? Do Americans pay more for subscription medicine than any other country's citizens? Are chemical plants at risk of a terrorist attack? The main point is that there is a gap between what Bush is saying and actual policy. If this is so, what are people agreeing with when they say they mostly agree with Bush? |
||
|
inot2B Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205Arkansas |
How can one person "Bush" be blamed for all the atrocities of this War? He is just one man who is guided with the help of Congress. A group of people who were voted in by the people. So if you don't like the President, then vote for someone else. Go out on the campaign trail and help your candidate. Tell how he/she would run this country, but do remember they will also have Congress guiding them. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
If Clark is elected he will personally guarantee that there are no more terrorist attacks  Give us credit for some sense! Pete |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Brad, in that case since you are interested then in providing biased material, we can just bring up Limbaigh's newsletter to give examples of how Bush is the greatest president since the great depression.....so what's the point? I didn't see any clear-cut facts and figures in your link. It said jobs were scarce. So? Last Wednesday several of the Wall Street economists stated that it is a cycle that constantly repeats itself. The economy rebounds, production increases and then employment figures increase. They expect a huge jump in employment by April because that's the way it works. Who is accurate? We'll have to see, I guess. It also stated Bush passed a bill prohibiting buying medicine from other countries....oh, really? Well, I must be breaking the law then because I get mine from Canada. Several east coasts cities must be breaking that same law because they purchase their medicines for health care from Canada, too. That story, along with the mayors of those cities, appeared on 60 Minutes not too long ago. Are nuclear power plants in more danger of attack? Sure. Are you saying they would be under less danger under another president? Presenting biased agencies as proof gets us nowhere. I could find oppositely-biased agencies and refute everything they say. So what is gained by that? Health care? Wasn't that the platform Clinton used to get elected 12 years ago..a workable health care plan? Even put his wife in charge of it....where was it after 8 years of a Democratic administration? Now the Democrats running are promising the same thing....health care and having the audacity to say where is it. In 8 or 16 years they will probably be saying the same thing....same button pushing every election and never results. Taking whatever wrong thing one can find in the world and attributing it to Bush being president is silly. We have a case of mad cow's disease and Democrats jump up and say it's because of Bush policies. They will jump on any excuse or opportunity they can to point a finger at the administration because they are desparate - and they count on periodicals like the Republic to double-talk a way to sell it to the public. Trouble for them right now is that the public's not listening. They've seen the tactics before and Bush's popularity stays high from those same people who are supposedly living in the hard, unbearable, unfair, barely human conditions the Republic is attempting to portray. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is Broder on O'Neil: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23715-2004Jan16.html quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, one other thing, Brad... Help me to explain this about the Republic, if you can. Part of this "proof" you offered contains the following: Jobs. Jobs are scarce and increasingly insecure. The new jobs that laid-off workers are getting generally don't have the pay or benefits of the ones they lost. Despite the much-advertised economic recovery, Bush will have the worst jobs record of any President since the Great Depression. In addition to the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs, high-tech and service jobs are headed overseas too. Bush has not only pushed for more of the same trade accords that helped get us into this hole, but he has failed to address China's mercantilist trade and currency policies, which have led to a staggering $100 billion US trade deficit. Much of the corporate investment that came from the wealthy benefiting from Bush's tax cuts went abroad, not here. Bush's policies are generating more jobs in Shanghai than in Saginaw. Then, on it's home page, it had this story... NAFTA at 10 by Jeff Faux Ten years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the people of the United States, Mexico and Canada as a simple treaty eliminating tariffs on goods crossing the three countries' borders. But NAFTA is much more: It is the constitution of an emerging continental economy that recognizes one citizen--the business corporation. It gives corporations extraordinary protections from government policies that might limit future profits, and extraordinary rights to force the privatization of virtually all civilian public services. Disputes are settled by secret tribunals of experts, many of whom are employed privately as corporate lawyers and consultants. At the same time, NAFTA excludes protections for workers, the environment and the public that are part of the social contract established through long political struggle in each of the countries. The business-backed politicians who pushed the agreement through the three legislatures promised that NAFTA would generate prosperity that would more than compensate "ordinary" people for its lack of social protections. Foreign investors would make Mexico an economic tiger, turning its poor workers into middle-class consumers who would then buy US and Canadian goods, creating more jobs in the high-wage countries. But as soon as the ink was dry on NAFTA, US factories began to shift production to maquiladora factories along the border, where the Mexican government assures a docile labor force and virtually no environmental restrictions. The US trade surplus with Mexico quickly turned into a deficit, and since then at least a half-million jobs have been lost, many of them in small towns and rural areas where there are no job alternatives. hmmmm....NAFTA. Who in the world brought that in? and it cost the US and Canada half a million jobs? I thought they said Bush did that. Same old story...ignore Democratic actions - blame it on Republicans when possible. It gets tiring.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, the Washington Post. Well, you have at least moved one step up from the Republic. Yes, I saw all of O'neill's statements and about "blind men around deaf people" or whatever he said and, of course, there were immediate comtradictory statment from those who attended those meetings...not to be unexpected. We could banter back and forth forever, bringing up articles, quoting "experts", and doing all kinds of things. Believe me, I am not saying Bush is a great president who never screws up. I've taken exception to many things he has done and he is certainly no polished politician. I do happen to believe he has done many things in an attempt to improve life for Americans and is sincere in his efforts. I don't believe he is on a power kick or doing things for headlines or to be remembered as "the greatest president to have ever lived", as Clinton hoped his legacy would be. He will obviously make more mistakes over the next four years. If you feel that someone else in that office will not make mistakes, then by all means vote for him. If you feel that another person will be more effective than him, vote for him. (I'm still looking for that huge surplus Clinton assured us we had). So to end this is simple. Those who feel Bush has done a decent job with honest intentions will vote for him. Those who feel that a Democratic opponent will do a better job will vote against him. The American public had a long time to see what the Democrats did in power - that's why they are not in power anymore and were decimated in the congressional and mayorial elections. Guess we'll find out soon..... |
||
|
*Belabebeautiful*
since 2003-01-03
Posts 696washington, USA |
Hehe!! man I get a kick out of you guys! That was a lot more reading than I had planned to do but I thought it was worth it to come back in and read up on what was posted after me, it made me smile! I stand with my original statement that I hope to god Bush gets re-elected and he has my vote cause, wow, Carey just scares me! but anyways interesting as usual, glad you guys decided to start backing opinion up with fact though, kudos to you! ~Live and Laugh~ The nice thing about being a pesimest is that your either right, or pleasantly surprised. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
God bless the U.S.A....and hopefully, more so if Kerry is elected..Bush isn't perfect by any means....he's tried his best, despite popularity, and, he hasn't "stolen" a single drop of Iraqi oil..hmm?...isn't that what the liberals said this was all about?...If you haven't been to war, you don't know much about it....if you have been, and been on the "ground"..having to kill and watch killing and watch inhumanities....(REAL INHUMANITIES, NOT NAKED PRISONERS BEING TOYED WITH....THE ONES THAT BLEW UP YOUR BROTHERS AND INNOCENT CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS IN COWARDLY AMBUSHES), I don't think there's even a "choice" in this election....except President Bush. Kerry has no idea of what's really going on, or, if he does have a "hint"...he sure doesn't know how to handle it. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Toerag- doesn't it stand to reason then, that since Bush never went to war (and, in fact, went AWOL) while Kerry fought in Vietnam, that Kerry actually knows more about war than Bush? By your logic, that is? |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
No Hush, it doesn't, in fact...show me one....just one...documentation of his AWOL?...Just one...in fact, when Kerry went to war, then came back and sided with Jane Fonda..(no not the fake picture, but the others), then condemned so much about the war, and when he has changed his opinion over 136 times, and his thoughts on war, funding of missle defense, funding on military, jobs going overseas with factories moving to Mexico, then his wife was found to have moved 11 Heinz plants to Brazil and Mexico, has changed his "stories" over 145 times in the last six months, his own democratic party has brought him to the table on over 45 different issues...his admitted treatment of prisoners and the enemy and still has the balls to condemn President Bush and his administration on something they had absolutely no control over Tell me something dear, if you were a manager at any large corporation, and you had 120,000...or hell, say 20 employees working for you, at another location, and one of them did something dastardly, should you resign?...Is it your fault?...Did you have absolute control?....Clinton, the liar, the adulterer, the scam artist, even admitted he was advised that WMD were in Iraq, does that make Bush more guilty of gullibility than Clinton?...Just tell me what has he done that WASN'T in the best interest of all people around the world in the fight against terror....Do you think if we sat on our laurels after 911 and all the other crap that's happened that we would be better off?...Do you think that if we'd stayed out of world war 1 and 2 that the world would be better off?....Just tell me? Or, are you quoting the erroneous lies by the Boston Globe...the ones that just today, printed their retraction about the headline pics of American Soldiers raping Iraqi female prisoners that they found to be staged and not true...is that the resource they're using for Bush being awol?...The democratic party is abolutely sick that Kerry has been nominated....don't believe old Toerag...I'm nuts...(and that's not erroneous, everyone knows I'm insane...LOL)...read some of my pathetic poetry)....look it up, the internet is full of sites from Democrats that are more ashamed of Kerry running for office then Clinton's tenure in office....but I love ya anyway?..... [This message has been edited by Toerag (05-14-2004 04:41 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Hey, sorry I didn't mean to get you so stoked up! Honestly, all I know is that I've heard mention of the AWOL from several sources, some very biased and not necessarily reliable (Micheal Moore) and others which are, in my opinion more 'fair and balanced' such as NPR and (i think) Newsweek. Yes, I know those sources are both slightly slanted, but I don't feel they are extremely so. But okay, putting the questionable AWOL aside -it wasn't really the point- I was simply pointing out that the statement 'If you haven't been to war, you don't know much about it....' and the fact that Bush hasn't fought in a war might logically lead to the conclusion that Kerry knows more about war, firsthand. I'm not a huge Kerry advocate or anything... I was just making a point. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Actually hush, it's a shame the democrats don't have a good candidate....and I was referring to the poster about "going to war"....LOL...actually, the whole situation really sucks, don't ya think? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Before throwing my couple of pennies in on this latest string of thoughts, I have to admit that I voted for President Bush v2.0, and plan on voting for him again. That being said... To answer the question that started this off... Again, I feel he will be re-elecetd in a very tight race (again). And I think the Democrats are going to sceram about illegalities and falsified balloting (again). And I think that the Democrats will continue to lie to the American public about things that the President has done. Oh, pardon me... they will vehemently tell us the "truth" about how the economy is bad (withhousing starts, housing sales, the consumer Price Index, the Stock market index, consumer confidence and such as that having made a record growth in the past year.), or how the President is sending all of the jobs over-seas (as has been discussed by better than I), or how we are in this war alone (regardless of the citizens of 11 other nations who have lost thier lives in Iraq), or about how we got into this war for his oil friends (even though the price of oil is still sky-rocketing), or about how he has lost more jobs than any other president (even though there have been almost a million jobs created this year... and wasn't it Ross Perot who commented about the "sucking sound" of jobs moving to Mexico in 1996?). I also believe that should the Democrats somehow pull this out, that the Republicans are going to blame the Democrats for all of the workd's ills. Welcome, my children, to politics as usual. Let me give you the thoughts of a theoretical madman: I believe that the reason we had a downturn in the economy is because of 9/11/2001. It has always been such, and shall always be such forevermore. Any major disaster causes a slip in consumer confidence, and causes the stock market to drop drastically. I believe that had the Trade Towers been used as a landing strip with President Gore at the helm, that we would be in even bigger trouble than many claim that we are in now. I feel that Al Gore would not have declared war on terrorism. We would still (again, my own thoughts) be in as much danger as we were before hand, without as much support as we have now. It is true that there might still be over 700 of America's young men and women (and old men and women) alive, and we would not be going through the scandal with the prisoners; however, we would have lost more than that in terrorist attacks around the world, and herwe at home because they knew we weren't going to do anything. As for the increased terrorist activity in Iraq and Afghanistan (please, let's not forget our troops over there), I put this in the same category as the Tet offensive: a desperate attempt to sway American thoughts, and policy by a group that is losing, and needs a public relations coup in the hope that the American government will lose its nerve and stutter step. My rambling actually has a point... Don't listen to ANYTHING anyone on this site has to say (including me). There are websites out there that offer an unbiased, unvarnished, non-political look at the candidates, the issues, and what's going on in the world. Read them, listen to the candidates on what they want to do(NOT what is wrong with the other guy), and think for yourself. Don't allow anyone to make up your mind for you. At the end of the day, you are going to ahve to live with yourself and the decisions you made. Make sure that those decisions are the ones you feel are best, and not a knee-jerk reaction to some rhetoric you heard someone screaming for or against a certain candidate. OK... rant over. Thanks for putting up with it. And another thing... (with apologies to Dennis Miller)... With all due respect to Mr. Kerry... If I am a Catholic who was in the Navy, in war-time, and who was decorated, and who was a senator, and who was from Massechussetts, and graduated from an Ivy League school... There is NO WAY on this world, or the next that I am running for the highest office in the land. I heard what happened to the last one!!!! Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... http://www.cmlb.net/ringo |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
groan... |
||
|
*Belabebeautiful*
since 2003-01-03
Posts 696washington, USA |
Ringo-*applause* Amen sir! You said most everything I was thinking! and the little tid bit at the end cracked me up!  ~Live and Laugh~ The nice thing about being a pesimest is that your either right, or pleasantly surprised. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
